« Reform Tour Rolls On | Main | MARAD Administrator Sean Connaughton: Celebrating Progress »

August 26, 2008

Comments

The Schweitzer-Taylor study conclusion that "medium- and high-income earners tend to use the lanes the most" contradicts the arguments of HOT lane advocates that HOT lanes are used by people "of all income levels." Regretfully, the study plays into the hands of critics that HOT lanes are "for the rich"

Saying that "medium and high income earners are the ones who use the lane's the most" is exactly why they are called "Lexus Lanes." The affluent can use the fast lanes, the poor have to use the clogged lanes. Instead of biting the bullet and actually spending government money to help all of the people (traditional road improvements/expansion), toll lanes allow a minority of people to buy their way to less traffic. The affluent will continue to fight tax increases because now they can purchase their convenience. This keeps them from having to have tax dollars go to, gracious sakes, the needy.

I'm not really sure I like the idea of paying a tax, which is what this congestion charge is, just to drive. It doesn't matter how you phrase it -- congesting pricing, tolls, etc. -- this is nothing more than a government levy. Bloomberg tried to do this in New York City, but the public opposed this and the State Senate, thankfully, nixed his plans.

Now, you can cite all the economists you want who use game theory to justify this tax, but the facts speak for themselves. London's congestion pricing scheme, which you probably base your proposal on, has been an absolute failure. The city government even admits this.

"The absolute level of congestion during 2007 was effectively identical to the representative value for conditions before the scheme was introduced in 2002," the report stated. "In other words, journey times inside the zone during 2007 were comparable to those prior to charging."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2495.asp

There is also a bigger medium-income population than high-income so obviously, there's going to be more medium-income people who use the freeway...

Hmm an alternate toll route alongside a congested roadway? Interesting concept, why not? Just how high IS this toll? I would also consider it a benefit that there is an uncongested lane available to emergency vehicles.

Did the "equity" study of SR 91 HOT lanes compare the payments, benefits, and incomes of people using lanes that are not priced? If not, the study and its critics cannot conclude anything about the "equity" of HOT lanes.

I feel that transportation experts do not agree with contradicts the arguments of HOT lane advocates.

synjones
DUI

I think congestion pricing makes sense, but won't be effective if the motorist doesn't know what the current congestion level will be and what the toll price will be (if the toll price is variable, as is the practice in some states).

In queueing, it is critically important to provide advanced notice, if possible, so that the person who is about to join a queue "balks" - or decides otherwise.

In fact that's the goal of congestion pricing - to discourage motorist to join a congested queue.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe

  • E-mail updates
    E-mail updates
  • RSS feed
    RSS feed
Add to Technorati Favorites